Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1887-02-04
DIR. mcGLxNr MAKES ANSWER


| 40 Sme FuDI1ghed statement Oh ATcn
| bishop Corfigan.
New York, Feb 5-To.naorrow' issue o.
Henry Georges paper will contain 1one
statement by DR.. McGlynn In which ht
| says:
Archbishop Corrigan havingSseen fit tc
publish a statement giving letters and parts
OF letters relating to me now supplement
his publication with such documents con
corning the eensures upon my course as !
have been able to lay my hands upon, &C.
campaigning them with some necessary ex-
PLANTATION" DIR. McGlynn says that his
speeches in 1889 for the Land league, which
Cardinal Simeoni described as containing
propositions contrary to Catholic teaching,
simply expressed the belief that all men are
equally entitled to the use of the bountiss of
nature, including land, sunlight, air and
water, and that human laws should be
changed to conform to this dictate of natural
justice. @sIt is absolutely false, although so
stated by Archbishop Corrigsn, that 'recog
them I reaflrmed and explained the
doctrine" DR.. MeGlynn cited a
speech in which he showed that the
eminent fathers of the church, st. BASIL St.
Ambrose, st. Augustine and Clement, taught
in regard to property substantially that
person holding more than is necessary to his
subsistence takes from tie poor that which
rigan and he had correspondence about
this, the Archbishop asking whether the
passages relied upon by DR.. McGlynn were
not generally considered spurious and DR..
McGlynn declaring that according to the
weight of.authority they were genuine. On
who denounced me to Rome for my
Land league speeches were Bishops Gilmore
of Cleveland and Chatard of Indianapolis, the
former the author and the latter the apollo
gist of the famous, or infamous, Cincinnati
pastoral letter, which was in great measure
deliberate thesis against Thomas Jefersons
declaration of independence" DR..
McGlynn adds that other bishops
manifested intolerance. GAS an instance of
the flimsy pretences on which they would
interfere with the right of priest to address
public meetings that could not be said to be
even of a political character" he quotes a
letter dated March 16, 1886, in which the
jected to DR.. McGlynn's speaking at a meet
ing on the excise question to be presided
over by Henry Ward Beecher, and at which
Rev. Howard Crosby was to speak. This
letter was marked private and contained no
command. DIR. McGlynn spoke at the
meeting, afterward wrote the Archbishop
that the breaking of public ad-
scandal and that his presence led to eulogies
upon the Catholic church from Mr.. Beecher
and DR.. Crosby, and that conversation with
DR.. Crosby had convinced him that that gen
tleman's asperity toward the church in some
matters might be softened by more frequent
co operation of this kind. Incidentally, DIR.
McGlynn brings out the fact that at this very
time he was interceding with President
Cleveland at the Archbishop's request for
political purpose-the promotion of General
Newton. The reason DR.. McGlynn spoke at
Chickering Hall for Henry George after
being ordered by the Archbishop
not to do so was that the
order was not given until after
DR.. McGlynn had promised and been adver-
tised to speak. It would be public scandal
and breach of contract not to speak. But
he agreed not to speak again. His suspen
sion came the next day and he observed it
although the Archbishop and Vicar General
Preston he says have circulated the false
NOR that he continued to say mass. In re-
spect to the Archbishop's remark that ''Next
came the sad sight of Catholic priest riding
in an open barouche from hall to ball, T" he
says: ''What law, human or divine, forbade
me SO to doc If it was a somewhat unusual
thing, yet 1 was impelled to do it by sense
of justice to the noble cause Mr.. George rep
resented partial Offset to the influence of
the widely published political manifesto of
Monsignor Preston"